[01:14] jtaylor: I don't mind rebuilding imagemagick, what's being dropped? [01:15] jtaylor: nevermind, I can use tools to figure it out [01:18] jtaylor: only edubuntu and ubuntustudio seems to be affected (well, mythbuntu also, but they're not releasing ISOs) === hrww is now known as hrw [07:49] good morning [08:13] debfx, directhex, DktrKranz: could one of you imagine teaming up with bdrung for the Developers Roundtable at UDW (Thu 31st Jan, 19:00 UTC), which will mostly be a Q&A session where everybody can ask their questions about Ubuntu Development in general? [08:37] Morning dholbach. [08:37] hey iulian [08:37] iulian, ^ maybe you could be interested in joining bdrung? :) [08:38] Nop, can't do that unfortunately. :( [08:39] no worries, I hope we find somebody else [08:39] I'm sure there's someone out there with more free time than me. ;) [08:40] there's 18:30 UTC (30m session) on that day we still have to find a speaker for too - we were thinking of either a demo of fixing a small bug or a walk through a few places to check for stuff to work on === zequence_ is now known as zequence [09:54] *sigh* [09:54] People mail me that the packages.ubuntu.com site uses the old favicon - but noone tells me where to get the new one. [09:54] And strangely, chrome doesn't display it to me on the www.ubuntu.com neither. [09:55] I see it in FF [09:55] Or on www.debian.org *puzzled* [09:55] www.ubuntu.com/sites/all/themes/ubuntu10/favicon.ico according to the source [09:55] Yep, found it in the source. === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan [09:56] But it's still a bit … well. *sigh* :) [10:35] notgary: Hi :) If you are still searching for bitesize Compiz bugs for papercutters, here is quite a bunch of those: https://bugs.launchpad.net/compiz/+bugs?field.tag=coverity [10:36] notgary: They seem to be ideal for newbies, because the whole sourcecode is Coverity commented and pretty self-explainatory, but ofc there might be false positives among those as well... [10:39] notgary: This was just FYI, if you want to concentrate on other projects first, then no problem either - but feel free to use those, if you are on papercutters-bug-shortage ;) [10:47] dholbach: Hi :) How many contributions to Ubuntu does one have to make until a packaging wish gets fulfilled for free ;) ? [10:49] dholbach: I am missing https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/emerald/+bug/968112 :) [10:49] Ubuntu bug 968112 in emerald (Ubuntu) "Emerald (the original Compiz Window Decorator) not available in Precise and Quantal, while it was working on all Ubuntu versions before [needs-packaging]" [Wishlist,Confirmed] === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ [11:47] MCR1: made a comment on the bug. Please provide requested information (it's mostly treasure-hunt / google-foo) =) === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw [12:55] xnox: This was not the solution I expected. Please read https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/emerald/+bug/968112/comments/7 [12:55] Ubuntu bug 968112 in emerald (Ubuntu) "Emerald (the original Compiz Window Decorator) not available in Precise and Quantal, while it was working on all Ubuntu versions before [needs-packaging]" [Wishlist,Incomplete] [12:56] xnox: I am running Emerald on Raring with latest Compiz/Unity and did so on Precise and Quantal as well [12:59] MCR1, the point is that there will be nobody fixing bugs, the code was put to death by its developers [13:00] so even if it builds and runs on all supported arches (which i highly doubt for arm or powerpc), it would just rot in the archive [13:01] ogra_: Has every program for Ubuntu now to run on the Ubuntu phone ? [13:01] ?? [13:01] ogra_: Then you would have to remove a lot more packages from the repos... [13:01] no, the phoine wont run most apps, it doesnt run an X server afaik [13:02] what has the phone to do with it ? [13:04] ogra_: The point is: there is currently no replacement equal to or even better than Emerald and it still works, so why throw it out ? [13:04] because its developers consider it dead [13:04] and it diodnt build on all arches ... since there was no developer for fixing it, it had to be removed from the archive [13:05] well, I would fix potential problems... [13:06] so first make sure to have the FTBFS fixed then [13:06] the build log from the bug is from a wrong version of Emerald btw - seems to be the non C++ branch [13:07] well, as I told you: I can build it without problems [13:07] create a PPA, ask the launchpad team for powerpc and armhf support for it, make sure it builds in all arches [13:08] alternatively just convince debian to ship it and it will automatically be synced from there [13:08] but its very unlikely debian will allow it in if it is an abandoned project upstream [13:09] (and of course you'd get push-back in Ubuntu for that too) [13:10] * ogra_ wouldnt push back if someone can actually proof he can take over upstream fixing and packaging for all arches and bugs [13:10] in which case, it should totally be in Debian :) [13:10] but thats indeed a quite advanced and likely also time consuming full time job :) [13:11] okay, guess I'll try to chat with some of the Debian packagers then - thanks [13:11] if there were historically problems buildign it on other archs [13:11] i bet they will tell you the same, but good luck [13:11] I'd start by seeinf if those are still issues [13:11] it's easy enough to build for ARM with qemu [13:11] right, thats why i suggested a PPA [13:12] tumbleweed: The initial problem was just a linker error [13:12] now that you can have armhf ... [13:12] then it got removed [13:13] it didnt build and nobody wanted to fix it [13:13] it was working and available until 11.10 and first noone knew how to fix it [13:13] (note that between opening of the bug and removing the package there were 6 weeks) [13:14] nobody bothered to fix it and there was no upstream anymore ... we dont allow packages in the archive that dont build [13:14] we have hundreds of packages that fail to build, each release. The few people that care don't have time to fix them all [13:14] right [13:14] then someone found out how to fix it and I added this information, but later nothing happened [13:15] and what cant be fixed and has no chance to be fixed through upstreams will be removed [13:15] because if we bring it back - there's still no upstream, so it's just a matter of time before it breaks again, and we have to deal with it [13:15] MCR1, ?? i dont see any other comment in the bug [13:15] all I am asking you is helping me get this package back in as I am no packager and have no packaging skills [13:16] doko obviously opened it on 2011-08-22 ... there were no comments on it until the package was removed 6 weeks later [13:16] MCR1, well, that can only happen if someone fixes it [13:16] ogra_: You are right -> it took some time until we found out the fix for the failing compilation [13:17] MCR1, the last comment on the bug is from 2011-09-29 [13:17] and there were no further ones until you commented a few mins ago [13:17] ogra_: I've now added detailed instructions - I did not know about this bug [13:18] detailed instructions ? [13:18] git checkout and make dont really help [13:18] ogra_: I made my own one here bug 968112 [13:18] bug 968112 in emerald (Ubuntu) "Emerald (the original Compiz Window Decorator) not available in Precise and Quantal, while it was working on all Ubuntu versions before [needs-packaging]" [Wishlist,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/968112 [13:18] someone needs to make a new upstream release of emerald, someone else needs to package it [13:19] and it needs to build on all arches [13:19] thats not a trivial task [13:19] I have only x86 [13:19] :( [13:19] use a PPA then [13:19] * ogra_ thinks we talk in circles since a while [13:20] ok, thx 4 the help [13:20] make it build and provide a debdiff, find an upstream dev or find a packager who is willing to take the heavylifting [13:20] thx === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ [13:36] ogra_: Does it help to have a PPA for i386 and amd64 maintained builds for Precise and Quantal ? [13:37] lp user ~brainpower is maintaining such a PPA, here the Quantal builds: https://launchpad.net/~brainpower/+archive/testing/+sourcepub/2745472/+listing-archive-extra [13:39] well, make him build for armhf and ppc too [13:40] I do not think that this will be easily possible, is this support essential ? [13:41] well, you need to make sure it builds on all arches [13:41] ogra_: AFAIK nan-canonical people can't get ppc access [13:41] we don't have emulated ppc [13:42] oh, ibthought ppc builds in containers too now [13:42] maybe I haven't been following *that* closely [13:42] ogra_: In Compiz we have plugins that are only built for amd64/i386 and won't work and thus are not compiled and packaged for arm/GLES [13:42] but I certainly don't see ppc ppa builders [13:43] well, i'm probably ahead of time here... UDS smoking corner marketingvtalks ;) [13:43] ogra_: That is why I asked if all packages nowadays need to run on arm also ? [13:43] MCR1, yes [13:44] I bet there are a ton of exceptions for this rule [13:44] not really... [13:45] no more glscreensaver for example ? [13:45] on hw that has no gl thats moot [13:45] remove all OpenGL applications ? [13:45] why ? [13:45] You really must be joking now [13:45] sw rendering works on arm [13:46] OpenGL != GLES [13:46] just not fast [13:46] and ? [13:46] MCR1: the replacements are the gtk & kde window decorator bridges + themes. [13:46] mesa = mesa ;) [13:47] MCR1: with respect to "solution", it simply means that it's underlinked and those two libs need to be either added at configure.ac / Makefile.am level, or potentially they are in the wrong order and need to come later. [13:47] which is an upstream task [13:47] MCR1: with a proper patch & autoreconf, it might go into universe or something like that. [13:48] right [13:48] ogra_: we patch a lot of packages like that =))))) [13:48] xnox: that would be great news :) [13:48] as i said. provide a debdiff and make sure it builds [13:49] (on all arches indeed) [13:52] ogra_: This is no attack, I am just wondering: http://packages.ubuntu.com/raring/xscreensaver-gl [13:52] Where are the arm builds ? [13:52] hmm? [13:53] I don't think we have any hard and fast requirement about that [13:53] it would be quite ugly for the repos... [13:53] ensuring ongoing maintenance is more interesting IME [13:53] MCR1, on launchpad [13:54] you use the wrong tool, packages.u.c is a third party service only listing x86 arches [13:54] ah, ok === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw [13:56] erm, that's not entirely accurate. it's on ubuntu.com and hosted on canonical servers, we can't call it a third party service [13:56] but yes, it builds on armhf https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/armhf/xscreensaver-gl [13:57] oh, ssince when ? [13:57] it used to be run by abdebian guy in the past, when wasbit moved ? [13:57] ogra_: I could find them on launchpad, thx 4 the info. [13:57] as long as I've know it... And yes, it is run by Rhonda, who is more a debian person [13:58] * Rhonda hides [13:58] ogra_: I will try my best to meet Emerald requirements (might take a while though...) [13:58] hmm, i'm probably to long in this business [13:59] MCR1, arm is not part of the official pool, is it. [13:59] iit is [13:59] I don't see arm in http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/ [13:59] and no, there is no requirement that every package build on every arch. But it's preferred. [13:59] since 5 releases [13:59] ogra_, isn't [13:59] Rhonda: it's on ports.ubuntu.com [13:59] tumbleweed: That's a seperate pool, thanks for proving my point. [13:59] internally to LP, they are the same pool [14:00] can you get at an internal mirror from the packages.u.c box? [14:00] it gets split out before it hits the primary public mirror [14:00] where they are in the same pool [14:00] Rhonda, it is officialnsince lucid === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ [14:00] ogra_, http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/lucid/ doesn't have it neither. [14:00] but will never move to archive.u.c [14:00] Thanks again for proving my point. [14:00] it's to do with usage not officialdom [14:00] it is a 100% officially supported arch nontheless [14:01] Why isn't it in the same pool then but in ports? [14:01] wejust dont move it to save mirrors from complaining,mits avtech reason we wont mobe itto archive.u.c [14:02] parse error [14:02] sorry, typing on a nexus7 here [14:02] Me too :) [14:02] we just dont move it to save mirror admins from complaining, its a tech reason we wont move it to archive.u.c [14:03] Then it's the same tech reason it's not included in pkg.u.c [14:03] but itis a fully supported arch nontheless [14:03] with 5 years support etc yadda yadda [14:04] (LTS supported only since precise though) [14:04] If someone would like to sponsor my efforts along that lines I would be willing to invest more time into the packages code. Unfortunately my time is limited and I have to take care for my kid and pay back loan. [14:04] we all do .., sadly :/ [14:06] knowing nothing about canonical infrastructure, is there a full mirror available to it? [14:06] full as in including ports [14:06] nope [14:06] because that would make it easy [14:07] persia knows a few unofficial asian ports mirrors iirc [14:07] yeah, it's not hard to reassemble one [14:07] but beyind that there arent any officilly [14:09] tumbleweed: Well, taking everything from ports isn't something I fancy. Are really all archs on ports officially supported ones? [14:09] ppc and armhf are [14:09] and armel went away [14:09] Hm, and those are the only two I see for raring. [14:09] armel not [14:10] Was armel official in lucid? ia64? sparc? [14:10] Thing is, deciding which are officially supported and which are not from having all in the same pool is fishing for problems. [14:10] armel, no ppc and no sparc/ia64 iirc [14:10] Would require load of additional complexity in the code. [14:11] If the official ones could be moved to archive and the inofficial be kept on ports, there would be code to work with that. [14:11] presumably at some point, we'll have to move armhf to archive.u.c [14:11] (or arm64 by then...) [14:11] iirc there are some tools in ubuntu-dev-tools tobfind whatsnsupported [14:11] And additional complexity only for the reason "to save mirror admins from complaining" [14:12] I dislike such decisions. They make things just unneeded complicated. :/ [14:12] ogra_: not that I know of [14:12] (but that was supposed to happen as the next stage of reorg...) [14:12] * ogra_ didnt make that decision, i would love to see my arm work on a.u.c [14:13] I assume at some point the traffic on ports will become unmanageable [14:13] (unless all vendors do their own thing) [14:13] but it has been discussed each release for the past 4 years [14:13] and hasnt moved til today [14:14] anyway, there is no requirement that every package build on every arch. But it's preferred. In Debain, I port my packages to all the archs I can [14:14] so i wouldnt expectthat to happen in the near future either [14:14] The much I hate making you feel bad for your work because it doesn't receive the publicity it deserves, the much I go with the pragmatic approach here: Not working around that issue might increase the preassure on them to get it in. [14:15] tumbleweed, i wouldnt let a package in if it wouldnt buildon all arches [14:15] Rhonda, heh,i didnt mean to push you there :) [14:16] ogra_: in this case, I'd agree with you [14:16] i was just stating the fact that o.u.c only has x86 [14:16] *p.u.c [14:21] Yep. And I've heard that before. My plan is to activate the "debports" part for ports.u.c to include them that way. [14:21] It would show the archs on the packages lists, but explicitly state them as "(unofficial port)" [14:22] That's the best I can offer on more-or-less short term. [14:22] being accurate about the officialness and canonical-supportability isn't that important on packages.u.c [14:22] (to me) [14:29] Rhonda: armhf is official, despite living on ports. [14:29] Rhonda: the ports vs archive split is pure disk space management for mirrors. [14:30] Rhonda: just list them all, without any labels =) [14:30] I assume that requires more work [14:33] xnox: Do you say so with your canonical hat on? :) [14:34] Rhonda: yes =) [14:35] Rhonda: also documented here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#Architectures [14:35] Rhonda: "While ARMEL and ARMHF are listed in ports.ubuntu.com for this release, they should be considered supported architectures" [14:36] AHAH! [14:36] "maintenance is best-effort" [14:36] see footnote 4 [14:36] Rhonda: but i think footnote 4 overrides that =) [14:36] it does [14:37] xnox: Yes, but that's a specific statement for those two archs, not a general one. [14:37] And that's where it gets tricky. [14:37] Rhonda: yeah, hence why I explicetly said "Rhonda: armhf is official, despite living on ports." [14:37] since armel is dropped in raring now anyway. [14:38] You also said "just list them all, without any labels =)" [14:38] erm, the release manifest linked is outdated [14:38] Rhonda: list them all without goind down the path of labeling something offices vs unofficial. It gets tricky very quickly and not as clear cut as ports vs archive. [14:38] since some ports at some point in time have or hasn't been "official" [14:39] yeah, powerpc was on and off [14:40] Rhonda: anyway p.u.c is very useful =) and the more it lists the better. [14:45] Well … http://www.amazon.de/registry/wishlist/3UJMXUVWGN7Y9/ *whistlesinnocently* ;) [14:47] No, I'll look into (ab)using the debports port for getting the ports stuff in. And I need to look why the package descriptions are NOT appearing anymore on the site. %-/ [14:48] Rhonda: this seems appropriate "Getting Things Done. The Art of Stress-Free Productivity" [14:52] * Rhonda nods === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === freeflyi1g is now known as freeflying === yofel_ is now known as yofel === vibhav is now known as Guest95839